Could the Kingdom Come in the First Century? Interpreting Mt. 4:17.

The title question—“Could the Kingdom come in the first century?”—addresses a common dispensational assertion that the Kingdom was literally offered during Christ’s earthly ministry to the Jewish nation. Before addressing this claim, it is important to clarify perspective: this study proceeds from a dispensational framework, though not of the progressive variety. The interpretive method employed is the literal, historical-grammatical approach, and therefore conclusions will not rest on traditional formulations simply because they have been widely represented by popular authors within any given theological system.

To present the traditional dispensational position in its own terms, Andrew M. Woods explains in The Coming Kingdom:

“The opportunity for the first-century Israel to enthrone Christ and consequently experience these blessings is known as ‘the offer of the kingdom.’”¹⁾Andrew M. Woods, The Coming Kingdom, Grace Gospel Press (Duluth, MN: 2016), p. 55

He further elaborates:

“Had first-century Israel enthroned Christ, this earthly kingdom would have become a reality not only for the nation but also for the entire world. Israel’s covenants would have been fulfilled, and the Times of the Gentiles would have been terminated. This offer of the kingdom to the first-century Israel should be interpreted and understood as a bona fide offer.”²⁾ Andrew M. Woods, The Coming Kingdom, Grace Gospel Press (Duluth, MN: 2016), p. 58

The principal text cited to support this doctrine is Matthew 4:17: “From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” IThis verse, however, makes no explicit reference to an “offer.” Instead, it presents the call to repentance alongside the declaration that the Kingdom is “at hand,” that is, “near.” Proponents infer that this nearness implies a genuine offer of the Millennial Kingdom contingent upon Israel’s acceptance. The purpose of this article is to consider carefully what it means that the Kingdom was “at hand.”

Charles Ryrie also described this as a “bona fide offer of the kingdom,” though he admitted the theological difficulty involved:

“But even if we cannot fully understand or explain how there can be a genuine offer of the kingdom by the One who knew and planned that it would be rejected we must not suggest that the offer was insincere.”³⁾Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Revised and Expanded), Moody Press (Chicago, IL: 1995), p. 151

This admission illustrates the tension within the position itself. If God foreknew the rejection, how could the offer be genuine? The central question, therefore, is not whether the offer was sincere, but whether Scripture presents any evidence of such an offer at all.

This teaching has been critiqued by Amillennialists, Postmillennialists, and Progressive Dispensationalists, who argue that it implies the possibility of circumventing the crucifixion. Lewis Sperry Chafer addressed this objection in his Systematic Theology (1948). Recognizing both divine sovereignty and human responsibility, Chafer wrote:

“Whatever occurs is usually directly or indirectly due to man’s action in free will; it is therefore natural to suppose that God is in some way subject to human determination, not realizing that God not only knows beforehand the choice His creatures will make, but is Himself able to work in them both to will and to do His own good pleasure.” ⁴⁾Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Dallas Seminary Press (Dallas, TX: 1948), Vol. 5, p. 347

After surveying several biblical examples in which divine foreknowledge and human decision intersect, Chafer concludes:

“Beyond all these confusing crosscurrents of determinations is the simple fact of revelation which asserts that the kingdom was offered as it was predicted it would be offered by Messiah’s forerunner, it was rejected, it was delayed until the immediate value of Christ’s death and resurrection as seen in the outcalling of the Church could be made effective. In this connection it will not be overstressed that, so far as the vision accorded the prophets of the Old Testament is concerned, there was in the program for Israel, as predicted, no separation between the two advents. But for the Church intercalation—which was wholly unforeseen and is wholly unrelated to any divine purpose which preceded it or which follows it—Israel would be expected to pass directly from the crucifixion to her kingdom; for it was not the death of Christ and His resurrection which demanded the postponement, but rather an unforeseen age.”⁵⁾ Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Dallas Seminary Press (Dallas, TX: 1948), Vol. 5, pp. 348-349

Chafer’s argument may be summarized as follows: the Kingdom was genuinely offered in the first century, foreknown by God to be rejected, which in turn opened the present dispensation in which Gentiles have been entrusted with the gospel—a reality not revealed in the Old Testament. According to this model, had the Jews accepted the Kingdom, the crucifixion would still have taken place (as foreordained for redemption), and the Kingdom would then have been inaugurated immediately after the resurrection with the enthronement of Christ.

Nevertheless, this framework presents several difficulties. First, if Israel had accepted the Kingdom, the logical question arises: how would Christ, their enthroned King, still undergo crucifixion? Second, the prophets explicitly foretold His rejection by His own people (Isaiah 53:2–3). Third, Woods argues that Israel’s rejection of the Kingdom is marked by the Pharisees’ accusation in Matthew 12:24:

“The Gospels carefully reveal Israel’s rejection of the kingdom offer. The turning point is found in Matthew 12:24.”⁶⁾ Andrew M. Woods, The Coming Kingdom, Grace Gospel Press (Duluth, MN: 2016), p. 64

Yet this seems inconsistent, for Christ was later received as King during His Triumphal Entry (Matthew 21:1–9). Fourth, it is problematic to equate the Galilean Pharisees’ charge that Christ’s miracles were wrought by Beelzebub with a national rejection. The common people largely embraced Him, and one would expect a genuine “national rejection” to originate in Jerusalem—the nation’s capital—by its religious leadership or broader populace. Fifth, the claim that the present dispensation of Gentile stewardship was entirely unforeseen in the Old Testament is contradicted by the apostle Paul’s own appeal to Old Testament prophecy. In Romans 15:9–12, Paul cites multiple texts (2 Samuel 22:50; Psalm 18:49; Deuteronomy 32:43; Psalm 117:1; Isaiah 11:10) as evidence that Gentile inclusion was anticipated. He reinforces this in Galatians 3:8: “And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.”

Dispensationalists frequently interpret the biblical term mystery as referring to truths unrevealed in previous ages. However, the word does not necessarily denote something entirely hidden, but often simply something not yet understood. Paul himself indicated that the Gentile mission was foreseen and revealed in the Old Testament. Woods, for instance, argues that “both the kingdom mysteries and church are unrevealed in the Old Testament and yet disclosed in the New Testament.”⁷⁾ Andrew M. Woods, The Coming Kingdom, Grace Gospel Press (Duluth, MN: 2016), p. 80 Similarly, Ryrie contends:

“A concordance examination of the word body indicates that the idea of a body into which redeemed people are placed is nowhere found in the Old Testament…. This further supports that the mystery of the equality of Jews and Gentiles in the one Body of Christ was unknown and unrevealed in the Old Testament.”⁸⁾ Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Revised and Expanded), Moody Press (Chicago, IL: 1995), p. 134

The first difficulty with this claim is its reliance upon a concordance word study rather than contextual exegesis that seeks conceptual parallels. The imagery of multiple individuals being united into one “body” is, in fact, present in the Old Testament—for example, Numbers 14:15; Judges 6:16; 20:1, 8, 11; Ezra 3:1; Nehemiah 8:2. Secondly, Ryrie’s assertion involves circular reasoning, assuming from the outset that the Bible teaches a universal church concept. Such a notion is not found in the New Testament.⁹⁾See Heath Henning, The Church: Local or Universal?, January 6, 2019, https://truthwatchers.com/the-church-local-or-universal/.

Woods further critiques the dispensationalist view that the kingdom was re-offered to Israel in Acts. His third argument states:

“If the offer of the kingdom and its imminent appearing is once again on the table in early Acts, then the mystery inter-advent age was hardly a certainty, thereby making Christ’s teaching of its inauguration seem disingenuous.”¹⁰⁾ Andrew M. Woods, The Coming Kingdom, Grace Gospel Press (Duluth, MN: 2016), p. 70

This point, however, undermines Woods’s own position regarding the alleged bona fide offer of the kingdom in the Gospels. If the kingdom was genuinely offered to Israel, then certainty about an inter-advent age would have been impossible, since acceptance could have resulted in its immediate inauguration. Moreover, Woods’s argument assumes that the Gentile age was prophesied in the Old Testament—something he elsewhere rejects as part of the mystery.

Woods’s seventh argument similarly appeals to Acts 1:6–7:

“Acts establishes that the timing of the coming of the kingdom is already something that has been fixed by the Father’s authority (Acts 1:6-7).”¹¹⁾ Andrew M. Woods, The Coming Kingdom, Grace Gospel Press (Duluth, MN: 2016), p. 72

Yet this was no less true during Christ’s earthly ministry (cf. Matthew 24:36). Again, his reasoning dismantles his own view of a bona fide offer. His eighth argument states that Peter in Acts 3:19–21 merely emphasized national repentance as the prerequisite for Christ’s return and the kingdom’s inauguration.¹²⁾ Andrew M. Woods, The Coming Kingdom, Grace Gospel Press (Duluth, MN: 2016), p. 72 But this is precisely what Jesus Himself proclaimed in Matthew 4:17: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Repentance is intrinsically tied to the inauguration of the kingdom. This theme pervades rabbinic literature. One particularly relevant passage is found in Pesikta Rabbati 44.9:

“Five things bring redemption. A man’s dire distress may be the cause of his being redeemed: In thy distress, when all these things are come upon thee (Deut 4:30). A time already set may be the cause of his being redeemed: in the end of days (ibid). A man’s turning in repentance may be the cause: thou wilt turn to the Lord thy God (ibid). The mercy of God may be the cause: For the Lord thy God is a merciful God (Deut 4:31). Or the merit of the Fathers may be the cause: he will not… forget the covenant of thy fathers (ibid). The return to God in itself a cause of redemption, also draws after it two other causes of redemption, namely the mercy of God and the merit of the Fathers[.]”¹³⁾ Pesikta Rabbati (trans. William G. Braude), Yale University Press (Dallas TX: 1968), Vol. 2, p. 778

Thus, in Jewish thought, repentance is a necessary condition for redemption, both individually and nationally, and is directly tied to the advent of the Messiah. The passage also recognizes God’s sovereign timing, establishing that redemption involves both human repentance and divine initiative. Modern Jewish scholarship affirms this principle. Jacob Immanuel Schochet writes:

“There are a number of ways conductive to hasten the Messianic redemption prior to its final date…. First and foremost among these mitzvot [commandments] is the principle of teshuvah [repentance or turning]…. Teshuvah, the comprehensive principle of submission to G-d and His will, thus is the most obvious means to bring about the immediate coming of Mashiach.”¹⁴⁾Jacob Immanuel Schochet, Mashiach: The principle of Machiach and the Messianic Era in Jewish Law and Tradition (New Expanded Edition), S.I.E. (New York, NY: 1992), p. 48-49

The New Testament echoes this teaching. Peter declares that repentance is necessary for the kingdom’s arrival (Acts 3:19–23) and explains that Christ’s crucifixion and ascension were necessary in order to grant Israel repentance (Acts 5:30–31). Paul similarly teaches that Israel’s current unbelief allows Gentile inclusion, but that Israel’s repentance will ultimately precede the kingdom’s establishment (Romans 11:19–27). I have discussed this in a previous article.

“These passages from the Psuedepigrapha reflect a number of passages from Scriptures that mention the necessity of Israel’s repentance for the end time kingdom to come (Deuteronomy 4:30-31; Hosea 14:1-7). Hosea 3:5 places this time of repentance in the latter days with David as king who is apparently resurrected to reign under the Messiah (cf. Ezekiel 34:23-24, 37:24-25). Zechariah 12:9-12 places Israel’s repentance in conjunction with their reception of Jesus Christ at His return being in agreement with Ezekiel 36:24-28 setting their repentance with the regeneration of the entire nation. Peter also preached this message to the Jews, concluding that all the prophets are in agreement with his message: “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.” (Acts 3:19-23) He also indicated that Jesus Christ was crucified and ascended to heaven for the purpose of giving repentance to Israel (Acts 5:30-31). Paul implied that Israel’s lack of repentance was in God’s plan to allow the gentiles an opportunity to repent and be grafted in to this salvation which will also place Israel’s repentance at the end prior to the kingdom being established (Romans 11:19-27).”¹⁵⁾Heath Henning, “Thy Kingdom Come: early Jewish views of the Messianic Kingdom,” February 16, 2019; https://truthwatchers.com/kingdom-come/

Notably, Peter states in Acts 5:30–31 that Christ’s crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension to the Father’s right hand were necessary prerequisites for Israel to experience national repentance. This implies that no genuine offer of the kingdom could have been extended during Christ’s earthly ministry, since God had preordained the timing of its inauguration. Such a moment could only occur after Israel’s repentance, which itself was contingent upon Christ’s ascension, thereby placing the kingdom’s realization at His Second Coming rather than His First Advent.

This point is further reinforced by ancient Jewish Midrashim, which likewise acknowledge the expectation of a suffering Messiah who would return in a second coming.

Commenting on Ruth  2:14—“The fifth interpretation makes it refer to the Messiah. COME HITHER: approach to royal state. AND EAT OF THE BREAD: refers to the bread of royalty; AND DIP THY MORSEL IN THE VINEGAR refers to his sufferings, as it is said, But he was wounded because of our transgressions (Isa. LIII, 5)…. R. Berekiah said in the name of R. Levi: The Future Redeemer will be like the former Redeemer [i.e. Moses]. Just as the former Redeemer revealed himself and later was hidden from them (and how long was he hidden? Three months, as it is said, And they met Moses and Aaron (Ex. V. 20), so the future Redeemer will be revealed to them, and then be hidden from them. (Ruth Rabbah 5.6)¹⁶⁾Midrash Rabbah, Ruth (trans. Rabbi Dr. L. Rabinowitz), Soncino Press (New York, NY: 1983), Vol. 8, pp. 64-65

This expectation of a suffering and returning Messiah is echoed in other Jewish texts, such as Pesikta de-Rab Kahana 5.8¹⁷⁾Pesikta De-Rab Kahana (Trans. William G. Braude and Israel J. Kapstein), Jewish Publication Society of America (Philladelphia, PA: 1978), pp. 103-104 and Pesikta Rabbati 15.10.¹⁸⁾Pesikta Rabbati (Trans. William Braude) Yale University Press (Dallas, TX: 1968), Vo. 1, pp. 319-320

The New Testament consistently affirms that it was necessary (δεῖ) for Christ to suffer, die, and rise again (e.g., Matthew 16:21; Luke 24:26, 44–46; Acts 17:3). Jesus repeatedly emphasized that the Scriptures foretold His suffering (Matthew 26:53–56; Mark 9:31; Luke 18:31–33). His triumphal entry (Matthew 21:1–11; John 12:12–15) demonstrated His kingship, yet He also predicted that “the kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” (Matthew 21:43). This statement, spoken in the future tense, reveals that the kingdom’s removal from Israel was not finalized in Matthew 12:24, as some dispensationalists claim.

No first-century Jew regarded the kingdom as presently realized, since they remained under Gentile domination. According to Daniel’s visions, the succession of four Gentile kingdoms had to be overthrown before God’s kingdom could be established on earth under the Messiah’s reign.

Quoting Woods’ words against his own framework, he explains his “kingdom offered” perspective in this way:

“This interpretive framework allows the various manifestations of the kingdom in the life of Christ (Matt. 12:28), such as His miracles, the exorcising of demons, and His Transfiguration (Matt. 17:1-8) to be interpreted as mere tokens of the coming kingdom rather than announcing an inaugurated form of the kingdom. Just as the Hebrews had ‘tasted’ of ‘the powers of the age to come’ (Heb. 6:5), Christ’s miracles should be understood in the same manner. They do not represent the manifestation of the age to come, but rather epitomize a mere foreshadowing of it.”¹⁹⁾ Andrew M. Woods, The Coming Kingdom, Grace Gospel Press (Duluth, MN: 2016), p. 213

I agree with this statement, though not within Woods’ larger interpretive framework of a bona fide kingdom offer. My understanding of Matthew 4:17 is that Christ was not offering the kingdom, but revealing Himself as the King. In using “kingdom” as a circumlocution, He declared Himself the central authority of the kingdom Israel desired. Woods himself provides support for this interpretation when he acknowledges: “To the Jewish mind king and kingdom went together like horse and carriage.”²⁰⁾ Andrew M. Woods, The Coming Kingdom, Grace Gospel Press (Duluth, MN: 2016), p. 218 Thus, in Matthew 4:17 Christ was announcing Himself as King who would establish the kingdom at a future time. That kingdom was not being offered to first-century Jews, for He first needed to be rejected, suffer, and die as atonement, before ascending to the Father to later return and establish His reign.

Woods further states, “the Lord pronounces judgment upon that generation (Matt. 23:36-39), for failing to recognize the hour of their visitation (Luke 19:42, 44; Dan. 9:26). In other words, they were judged because they failed to accept the offer.”²¹⁾ Andrew M. Woods, The Coming Kingdom, Grace Gospel Press (Duluth, MN: 2016), p. 214 Here Woods nearly reaches the correct conclusion, but again misinterprets it through the “offer” paradigm. The judgment came not because they failed to accept an offer, but because they failed to recognize the King Himself, who had personally visited them. Elsewhere Woods affirms:

“All of this to say, that the kingdom was very much in the midst of the nation (Luke 17:21) at Christ’s First Advent since the king was present. This reality explains why Christ in verse 20 noted ‘The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed.’ In other words, because the kingdom through the presence of the king stood in their very midst, the kingdom, in this sense, was indeed already a present reality and was not preceded by various signs.”²²⁾ Andrew M. Woods, The Coming Kingdom, Grace Gospel Press (Duluth, MN: 2016), p. 220

This statement provides stronger coherence to the kingdom passages than the idea of a bona fide offer. It also clarifies texts such as Matthew 21:43, where the kingdom is said to be taken from the Jews and entrusted to the Gentiles—referring to stewardship of the Gospel message rather than a rescinded offer of a physical kingdom.

Interpreting Matthew 4:17 as Christ revealing Himself as King safeguards the Old Testament expectation of a physical kingdom, aligns with Second Temple Jewish sources, and consistently harmonizes the passages without resorting to the “offer” construct. It also avoids the spiritualized readings of Progressive Dispensationalists, Kingdom Now advocates, and Amillennialists who claim the kingdom is “already” present within believers’ hearts. Instead, the kingdom was present in the personal visitation of the King Himself, both for healing and for judgment (Luke 10:9–10). Christ taught that the kingdom would be “nigh” at the end of the tribulation (Matt. 24:33; Luke 21:31), consistent with His foreknowledge of His Second Coming and the prophetic record. This interpretation provides the simplest and most coherent reading of the cumulative kingdom passages.

Furthermore, it avoids the circular reasoning that underlies alternative approaches. Other views presuppose their framework and then import it into Matthew 4:17, rather than deriving their framework from the text itself. By contrast, this interpretation stands on its own and can be acknowledged even within dispensational explanations, while leaving little ground for refutation from other eschatological models, even if they prefer to disregard it.

A final note should be made regarding Woods’ work. Although I disagree with his concept of a bona fide offer, The Coming Kingdom is not a book filled with error. It provides much valuable material and is a worthwhile resource for understanding the biblical teaching on the kingdom in contrast to the many distortions propagated today.